All Things Counter

Insignificancia

2015-05-30T17:40:00.002-05:00

One of the issues I've wrestled with over the years is how western psycho-social models find the locus of a problem within the oppressed without giving a structural and cultural context. And I remember feeling such an empowering sense of relief when I stumbled upon James Newton Poling's assessment of a woman who had been subject to abuse in "every aspect of her life" -

"she was stigmatized as a neurotic who needed special care and discipline rather than treated as a person suffering from injustice."*

Poling's reflections were part of a confession on his part, in that he "offered pastoral care and counseling according to textbook advice" and "missed seeing that her behavior was a form of resistance to evil." Namely,

"She insisted that we understand her pain and provide the resources she needed for healing and for the expression of her spirit."*

Becoming more aware of this dynamic led to a very deep appreciation for the description of insignificancia in liberation theology. Elsa Tamez called this one of two "urgent dimensions of the experience of excluded or marginalized people" (the other being physical hunger) -

"the first [starvation] entails condemnation to death due to the nature of exclusion in the economic system currently in force, and the second [insignificancia] results from not being accorded one's dignity as a human person."**

She further explained that -

"It refers to the negative assessment of poor and marginalized people by those more powerful. That assessment is internalized as a sense of one's own unimportance according to the world's categories. The criteria underlying it are sociopolitical or economic, and not the existentialist ennui or sense of meaninglessness of life."***

When it comes to working through my own past experiences of abuse, I have felt a deep pressure to acquiesce to this kind of thinking. And some of my experiences with psycho-social models made this even worse, since I became merely a victim of abuse, a traumatized person, instead of a "person suffering from injustice." If I am merely a traumatized person, the abuser is safely ignored and the social and cultural systems that support the abuse are unacknowledged. If I am a person suffering from injustice, my healing is bound up with unmasking, resisting, and transforming those systems and the community. Rather than being a passive recipient of best treatments, I am an actor working for change. Most significantly, those who suffer injustice are no longer unimportant; rather, their voices and lives are recognized to be essential in cultivating the health of the community.

There are many reasons why a person or society would prefer to hide this insight, since acknowledging it entails acknowledging our complicity within systems that oppress, exploit and dominate without regard for human life or ecological integrity. And with such an acknowledgement, those who benefit from oppressive structures and cultures are left with a choice - to keep the conveniences and luxuries and wealth, but with a painful awareness of the complicity, or to join the hard work of resistance in joyful solidarity with the oppressed.

Thankfully, there are pockets of people and places where we are taking time to engage in this process of liberation. As Mary Watkins has expressed it:

"Identification with dominant ideas and practices, where power is coalesced, push to the margins all else. It is only through practices of concerted contact with what has been marginalized that dominant points of view can be challenged/critiqued, .... Liberation psychology, birthed from the inspiration of liberation theology, argues that psychology itself requires liberation before it can be a clear force for liberation."+

This insight holds true for many of the psycho-social interventions developed in the west, including disciplines related to conflict transformation and restorative justice. And the impetus is on us to join together, since, as Burton and Kagan have pointed out, this kind of cooperation might be the best course of action for all of us, especially when:

"the disciplinary boundaries of psychology are enforced by a whole set of institutional factors (professional organisations, publications, the research evaluations, etc.). The alternative is interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary working (...), and perhaps this is where liberatory psychologists should be focusing their efforts to better use their limited weight in national and world contexts where there is rather a lot to do."++

Here's to all of us dreaming and working together for another world.

------------
*James Newton Poling, Deliver Us From Evil: Resisting Racial and Gender Oppression (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), xi.

**Elsa Tamez, The Amnesty of Grace: Justification by Faith from a Latin American Perspective, trans. by Sharon H. Ringe (Nashville: Abingdon, 1993), 14.

***ibid., n. 6, page 169.

+Mary Watkins, "Seeding liberation: A dialogue between depth psychology and liberation psychology." In D. Slattery & L. Corbett (Eds.), Depth Psychology: Meditations in the Field. (Einsiedeln: SW, 2002), 4.

++Mark Burton and Carolyn Kagan, "Towards a Really Social Psychology: Liberation Psychology Beyond Latin America." In M. Montero and C.C. Sonn (eds.), Psychology of Liberation, Peace Psychology Book Series (Springer Science Business Media, 2009), 67.

Patience and Praxis

2015-05-20T11:18:00.000-05:00

After a long break, I've decided to start posting again. We'll see how it goes.
***********

My reflections of late have turned to patience, a reflection that has arisen out of the personal, relational, structural, and cultural turmoil of the last few years.

Reactivity, impulsiveness with no regard for wisdom, is the obvious choice of obstacles when it comes to patience. But that has not been my preferred vice when it comes to trying to embody peace and justice in my own life and in community with those around me. I'm fairly slow and steady, and that seems to be a deep habit that isn't changing anytime soon.

Instead, I've noticed that the real danger for me when it comes to losing my patience is despair. This makes sense to me. In the face of terrible odds and intractable systemic injustice, some of us lose ourselves in the moment and do something rash that we might regret. Some of us, lose ourselves in the grief and simply begin to fade away. Some of us may do a little of both, shaking our fists as we drown in tears.

In the past, I'd conceptualized this kind of impatience as passivity, but I don't personally find that nearly as useful a category of reflection as despair. It's not simple indifference; it's the hollow feeling that threatens to engulf me that is most akin to mourning.

And this reflection has also helped me move forward. Reflecting on my experience in this way, I can understand I have a need to grieve and that honoring that need is a radical act in itself.

As part of these acts of healing, I've inclined my ear again to Elsa Tamez. She described the necessary attitude as

"militant patience, that is, of steadfastness, of resistance, of heroic endurance, all the while practicing justice." *

And, importantly for me, she concludes that those who practice in this way

"do not fall into despair, but rather wisely recognize the opportune moments."**

And that's the definition of patience that I'll carry with me in the days ahead.

-----------
*Elsa Tamez, The Scandalous Message of James: Faith Without Works is Dead (New York: Crossroad Publishing Company, 1990), 74.
**ibid., 75.

Land Titling, Development and Real World Limitations

2013-10-21T22:43:00.000-05:00

As part of a discussion on property rights and development in Approaches to Community Development, an interview with Hernando de Soto, "This Land Is Your Land: A Conversation with Hernando de Soto," was recommended reading. The following was my reaction.
*****

Thanks for the link!

I have to confess, though, that I feel very uncomfortable with what de Soto was describing, especially in the context of the work I experienced related to property rights, land grabbing and violent evictions in Cambodia.

First off, I feel uncomfortable with the idea of reducing ecosystems to “potential wealth.” This seems like more of the same in terms of a very prescriptive, exploitative approach to development: “a huge source of petroleum, a huge source of gas, a huge source of hydroelectric power, and minerals and metals.” One question that immediately arises for me is: if you actually gave indigenous people rights to that land and they resisted exploitation and extraction, what would happen?

But I think that, historically and in the present, this question had already been answered. Whatever the theory is, however positive and peaceful the land reform looks like in a vacuum, in real life what is usually happening is that the colonizers and/or developers are sizing up the assets with the full intention to do with them what they please. In this way, legal property rights are simply paving the way for legal appropriation of that property from the people to the developers.

In Cambodia, the government would grant property rights and still award concessions, and then use the legal policies of land titling and reform as a way to 1) pacify/control the people whose property was at risk in such a way to minimize resistance (by giving them the illusion of legal protection that never materialized and often fracturing or postponing community resistance until it was too late) and 2) justify the very concessions and forced evictions that the developers demand (by leveraging legal loopholes, greased with corruption).

One recent analysis (June 12, 2013) offered by Human Rights Watch is a good summary of the continuing challenges my friends in Cambodia face and the issues at stake in the real world:

“[Prime Minister] Hun Sen has claimed that the measuring and titling campaign was aimed to benefit people living without proper legal authorization and documentation on state land designated for private use and granted to companies as economic or forestry concessions. According to Hun Sen, his titling program would provide ownership documents to 478,928 families in relation to 1.8 million hectares of land.

“However, in practice the titling program is subject to domination by wealthy and powerful interests who have diverted it to increase their land-holdings and leverage over affected populations, Human Rights Watch said. Moreover, the scheme has been set up by Hun Sen so that those victimized by the program often have no effective recourse and may suffer adverse consequences if they attempt to protest.” (“Cambodia: Land Titling Campaign Open to Abuse”)

On the whole, the feeling I get is that the land titling movement, as it operates in reality, often requires people to buy-in to the whole legal and philosophical framework of mainstream development. And that is a big gamble, since it is dubious that this framework has the best interests of the ecosystems, cultures and communities involved in mind.

I also acknowledge, however, how strong my opinions are and how influenced they have been by the very emotional and unjust actions I experienced in Cambodia. I am happy to be convinced otherwise. :)

Renewed Commitment and Energy

2013-10-02T09:04:00.003-05:00

As part of my readings* for a course on Approaches to Community Development, I was reflecting on two very different movements in Sri Lanka (Sarvodaya) and Kenya (Green Belt Movement). My initial reflections centered on these fourteen themes, in no particular order.

1. Both movements began and thrived in less than ideal situations, including social conflict and violence.

2. Both movements were open to ideas from and cooperation with those outside their communities but in ways that wereappropriate to their own context and honored the integrity of their communities and histories. (This was explicit in the Sarvodaya article: "In fact, Dr. A. T. Ariyaratne, the teacher in question, openly admits that the beliefs and experiences that motivated him had their origins in a combination of Western and South Asian value systems as well as his unique style of teaching. The movement’s hallmark shramadana camps, for example, evolved from an ancient village tradition of sharing labor, especially at harvest time, as well as Quaker work camps after World War II."Additionally, in Maathai’s case this included fostering something like a People's History to ground the movement: "... many in my generation marginalized [outstanding members of society] and disregarded their great achievements. This was partly as a result of colonialism, which condemned our heroes and role models and instead praised those who collaborated with them.")

3. Both movements embraced working together and the sharing of physical labor as a path to learning the meaning of community. Significantly, this relates to empowerment, as seen in "Ariyaratne’s (1996) preference for ‘sharing’ over ‘giving,’ as the former word implies a sense of community reciprocity""empowers those who did not apprehend their own assets."(This may also be related to the philosophies of asset-based community development (ABCD): "Give young people a voice and help them participate in community life by sharing their talents, and they have a much better chance of succeeding.")

4. Both movements found successful strategies that emerged from practice and reflection and were "synthesized retrospectively." The Sarvodaya motto reflects this: "We build the road and the road builds us." Maathai also emphasized learning as you go through observation and adaptation: "Then came the revolution. The women decided to do away with the professional approach to forestry and instead use their common sense! After all, they had for a long time successfully cultivated various crops on their farms. ... The campaign encouraged them to use their traditional skills, wisdom and plain common - and perhaps women - sense."

5. Related to this, and perhaps because of it, the results of the Sarvodaya could not be replicated by mere imitation; "the psychosocial and spiritual foundations of the movement"were essential.

6. Both movements were holistic and clearly saw the interdependence between ecological integrity and human community and health. As Maathai wrote, "The Green Belt Movement has over the past 30 years shown that sustainable development linked with democratic values promotes human rights, social justice and equity, including the balance of power between women and men."(The 10 Basic Human Needs from Sarvodaya are: 1. Clean environment; 2. Adequate supply of water; 3. Clothing; 4. Nutritious food; 5. Shelter; 6. Health care; 7. Communication; 8. Fuel and lighting (Energy); 9. Access to education; 10. Cultural and spiritual engagement (from http://www.sarvodayausa.org/learn/10-basic-human-needs/))

7. This holism created community connections that could readily provide the "three groups of protective factors"associated with resilience by Bonnie Benard - “caring and support, high expectations, and participation and involvement.”This is also reflected in Sarvodaya’s village governance model that involved people at all ages: "Each person has something important to offer.... people feel empowered when they become aware of what they may accomplish together, not out of some externally proposed plan, but because they grasp the greater potential within themselves and each other."

8. Both movements saw that mere knowledge and skills would not alone be transformative; attitudes and beliefs also had to engaged. -"Ariyaratne has often contended that a critical mass can transform what he refers to as the psychosphere—the composite and collective expression of human emotion and thought—as well as daily reality." "I go on my conviction that Wisdom and not Knowledge is the answer to the problems we are facing today." Similarly, Maathai recognized that: "Unfortunately, I had to learn the hard way that poor people can make themselves too much of a burden for one to assist them."

9. Both movements havefocused on small objectives that add up over time and through building a critical mass. Further, success could be viewed as faithfulness in small things and in the very persistence with which the vision was pursued. For example, Maathai wrote that her response to being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize was to plant another tree. She further reflected:"What my experiences have taught me is that service to others has its own special rewards." "The Prize demonstrates that although the work of grassroots groups, especially women's groups, does not always make headline news, it does make a difference." "...if we do not project fear, we are able to progress despite the odds...." Embracing an ethic that makes a difference, even when it doesn’t make headlines, seems especially important here. And even headlines can be transformed into more opportunities to make a difference: “I do not see the Prize as a destination, but rather as an extraordinary opportunity that has been given not just to me but to all people in the world who share the values and vision..."

10. This embrace of small objectives is coupled with themes of celebration, gratification/satisfaction, and gratitude/appreciation. This is especially evident in Maathai’s narrative.

11. Strong foundations remain essential. For example, Maathai wrote: "When in later years I became vilified and the Green Belt Movement became trivialized ..., I would go back to these humble origins and reconfirm to myself the fact that what I had began doing in my early thirties was inspired by and for the common good. I had no idea what would become of it but had what it took: inspiration, persistence, patience and commitment." This foundation included honesty and integrity: "I assumed that all people working in public service loved the people they served, were accountable and transparent, and had integrity. That ... had been inculcated in me by my parents and teachers. It was part of my personality, character and conscience." Finally, this affirmation of values and vision was also built into community practices, as demonstrated when: "At every tree-planting ceremony, the participants re-affirmed their dedication to this cause by reciting the following committal: ...."

12. Development includes many stories: stories about what has happened in the past, how things are done (or not done), and how the community sees itself. Communities constantly collect and share these stories of change (e.g., the women of Naaro), and communities can intentionally tap into these stories as a way to reflect on practices and possibilities. As Maathai wrote, her story is proof of the possible: "sustainable development is possible; ... reforestation of degraded land is possible; ... exemplary governance is possible..."

13. These stories also remind us of the power of reflective practice to transform failure into wisdom that becomes the foundation of future success. Being persistent and consistent, “walking with us in bad and good times,"makes this possible.

14. This persistence also relies on the support and encouragement of others, as when Maathai wrote about the importance of Mr. Murefu believing in her, her trip to Vancouver when she found renewed commitment and energy,” and the Harambee motto, Let us all pull together!"

*Sources:
Brooks, R. & Khanal, S. (2009) “The Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement of Sri Lanka: The Elephant Moves and We Begin to Understand the Whole.” Beliefs and Values 1(1): pp. 11-18.
Maathai, W. (2004) The Green Belt Movement. Lantern Books, New York, pp. vii-32.

No Rule Book

2013-09-23T15:08:00.002-05:00

Not that this is any surprise, but it is nice to see where the research is heading:

"A new review of dozens of studies involving more than 14,600 pairs of twins shows that children's genetics significantly affect how they are parented." (SOURCE)

In other words, parenting involves a very complex and mutually influential interplay between child and parent. Parents are changed by their interactions with their children just as truly as children are changed by their interactions with their parents. And this is especially the case as the child grows older and become more autonomous, making "their genetic tendencies ... more likely to be able to affect their behavior."

In one example,

"Knafo's research group found that boys with less self-control are more likely to experience lower levels of positive maternal behavior. For boys, but not for girls, a particular genotype -- a polymorphic region in the gene that codes for the serotonin transporter -- predicted mothers' levels of positive parenting and the boys' level of self-control. 'In other words, boys' genetically influenced level of self-control affected the behavior of their mothers toward them,' Avinun says." (SOURCE)

I think most parents could relate to this. Being with a child with less self-control is challenging; it's easier to unconsciously reduce the quality or quantity of those interactions or even consciously punish a child for that tendency. Sadly, it is this child who could greatly benefit from the positive interaction that elicits the opposite - UNLESS the parent is aware of these tendencies and can adjust.

But this takes a great amount of practice and effort. You've got to be paying attention to yourself as a parent AND to the child. You have to really see how both of your dispositions interact with each other, rather than just taking a one-sided glance at the situation.

"The research in total, Avinun says, 'means that parenting should not be viewed solely as a characteristic of the parent, but as something that results from both parental and child attributes.' Therefore, any interventions or treatments to help parenting should consider both the parents and children, and could vary even within a family. ...

"Because children are born differently, there never can be a general rule book for raising children, she explains. 'There isn't one style of ideal parenting. Each child requires a different environment to excel. So parents should not invest a lot of effort in trying to treat their children similarly, but instead, be aware of the variation in their children's attributes and nurture them accordingly.'" (SOURCE)

So there is a similarity, but it is not in treating everyone the same, but in treating everyone out of the same commitment to understanding and love.

Further, we don't have to be fooled by all the unsolicited advice about consistency, laying down hard rules for how every child must be treated and every situation handled. True consistency will be made up of listening deeply, looking clearly and responding with empathy both for ourselves as parents and our children as full human beings.

***
SOURCE: "Why Parenting Can Never Have a Rule Book: Children's Genetics Significantly Affect How They Are Parented" at ScienceDaily (HERE)

More on Addressing Violence Against Women and Girls

2013-09-21T16:44:00.000-05:00

If you haven't had a chance to look at the recent UN study on violence against women and girls in Asia, it's really worth the time.

Significantly, this large study confirms the research indicating that cultural beliefs and social structures empower this kind of violence. In particular, men largely enjoy impunity for sexually violent crimes like rape (a social structure) and are encouraged in their actions by widespread beliefs that men are entitled to sex without a woman's consent. The study also noted exposure to violence as a child and cultures that celebrate "male toughness" as other sources contributing to male violence against women and girls.

There are so many practical implications to this, and the study highlights many of them. At the base of them is an affirmation of masculinities that embrace empathy and nonviolence.

You can read a teaser, "Survey of 10,000 Men in Asia and the Pacific Reveals Why Some Men Use Violence Against Women and Girls," at ScienceDaily, HERE.

You can access a summary report and the full report at Partners for Prevention, HERE.

If you are really interested, you can also view some of the research we were involved in with transforming family conflict in Cambodia, which is based on these very ideas. There's a literature review that gives a solid foundation for understanding the current field of ideas on domestic violence (HERE) and a research report on the case study we conducted on engaging family conflict (HERE).

You might also be interested in resources at the Men's Nonviolence Project (HERE) or Voice Male Magazine (HERE).

Love and Hate

2013-02-09T21:52:00.000-06:00

Here are two quotes from George Washington Carver on the subject of love and hate.

First -

"When our thoughts - which bring actions - are filled with hate against anyone, Negro or white, we are in a living hell. That is as real as hell will ever be.

"While hate for our fellow man puts us in a living hell, holding good thoughts for them brings us an opposite state of living, one of happiness, success, peace. We are then in heaven." (SOURCE)

And again -

"Fear of something is at the root of hate for others and hate within will eventually destroy the hater. Keep your thoughts free from hate, and you need have no fear from those who hate you." (SOURCE)

Whether or not it came to George W. Carver's mind when he wrote these words, the lynching he witnessed in 1879 certainly came to my mind when I read them. That lynched and burning body was an image of how hatred creates a hell on earth for both the hater and the hated, and Carver had to find a way to navigate a world that could flare up in that kind of violence and inspire terrible and real fear.

That he could work through that kind of experience to the point that he could put aside both fear and hate and have no need of them is both a wonderful testimony to the man he was and a wonderful challenge for all of us who are brave enough to face hatred and fear with love.

There's a nice biography of Carver, with many photos, at Iowa Roots.

Another Advantage of Local Products

2013-01-17T06:22:00.000-06:00

One of the tricky things about interdependence is you can't always predict what the consequences, often negative, will be. And the trickiness just increases with size and complexity. One of the strengths of local production and consumption is not so much in avoiding unforeseen consequences but in recognizing (and, one hopes, addressing) them sooner.

This is what kept coming to my mind when I read "Can vegans stomach the unpalatable truth about quinoa? Ethical consumers should be aware poor Bolivians can no longer afford their staple grain, due to western demand raising prices." Three examples tell the cautionary tale -

Quinoa -

"The appetite of countries such as ours for this grain has pushed up prices to such an extent that poorer people in Peru and Bolivia, for whom it was once a nourishing staple food, can no longer afford to eat it. Imported junk food is cheaper. In Lima, quinoa now costs more than chicken. Outside the cities, and fuelled by overseas demand, the pressure is on to turn land that once produced a portfolio of diverse crops into quinoa monoculture."

Asparagus -

"Feeding our apparently insatiable 365-day-a-year hunger for this luxury vegetable, Peru has also cornered the world market in asparagus. Result? In the arid Ica region where Peruvian asparagus production is concentrated, this thirsty export vegetable has depleted the water resources on which local people depend. NGOs report that asparagus labourers toil in sub-standard conditions and cannot afford to feed their children while fat cat exporters and foreign supermarkets cream off the profits. That's the pedigree of all those bunches of pricy spears on supermarket shelves."

and Soya -

"Soya, a foodstuff beloved of the vegan lobby as an alternative to dairy products, is another problematic import, one that drives environmental destruction. Embarrassingly, for those who portray it as a progressive alternative to planet-destroying meat, soya production is now one of the two main causes of deforestation in South America, along with cattle ranching, where vast expanses of forest and grassland have been felled to make way for huge plantations."

Despite the title of the article, it's not just vegans who face these kinds of dilemmas. Our food systems in general are riddled with human exploitation, environmental destruction, and economic inequity. But the article does point out that it is often easier for omnivores to get protein-rich locally produced food, and that is, in my experience, true.

Still, the general rule is that it is easier to see connections, build healthy communities, and address harmful consequences on a smaller than a larger scale. In addition to other benefits, supporting your local farmers adds another layer of communication and accountability to food consumption.

Going local, you're less likely to inspire -

"Bitter battles ... over prime quinoa-growing land. Last February dozens of people were hurt when farmers fought with slings and sticks of dynamite over what was once abandoned land." (SOURCE)

You're much more likely to have just found a friend who is grateful for your recognition of the essential part farmers play in our well-being.

EDIT: Here are two follow-up articles that address more of the complicated nature of relationships that make up our food supply. Again and to me, reading these articles reinforce the importance of eating locally whenever possible if you really want to see and understand the consequences of your consumption. :)

-"It’s OK To Eat Quinoa: Don’t buy the media’s hand-wringing about Bolivians who can’t afford quinoa. The real effects of Western demand are complicated." from Slate
-"Are you a terrible person for eating quinoa?" from Grist

More Facebook Research

2013-01-16T12:43:00.002-06:00

Two more articles share more advantages and disadvantages of social networking sites.

In "Never Forget a Face(book): Memory for Online Posts Beats Faces and Books," researchers sought to

"shed light on how our memories favour natural, spontaneous writing over polished, edited content, and could have wider implications for the worlds of education, communications and advertising."

After analyzing data collected from two memory tests, they concluded:

"Writing that is easy and quick to generate is also easy to remember -- the more casual and unedited, the more 'mind-ready' it is. Knowing this could help in the design of better educational tools as well as offering useful insights for communications or advertising. Of course we're not suggesting textbooks written entirely in tweets, nor should editors be rendered useless, -- but textbook writers or lecturers using PowerPoint could certainly benefit from using more natural speech to get information across. And outside these settings, at the very least maybe we should take more care about what we post on Facebook as it seems those posts might just be remembered for a long time."

A second article, "Social Networks May Inflate Self-Esteem, Reduce Self-Control," described the results of five studies on the relationship between social networking use, self-esteem, and self-control. In short, the study

"demonstrates that users who are focused on close friends tend to experience an increase in self-esteem while browsing their social networks; afterwards, these users display less self-control. Greater social network use among this category of users with strong ties to their friends is also associated with individuals having higher body-mass indexes and higher levels of credit-card debt..."

Based on my own limited Facebook use, my guess is that this latter impact, a reduction in self-control, is more likely to be exploited in a negative way than the former, increased memory for educational purposes, is to be exploited in a positive way.

These are all the more reasons for all social-networking users to be very mindful to they goals they have when online and alert to the impacts they notice in their own thinking and behavior.

Self-Efficacy

2012-12-19T12:13:00.002-06:00

John and I recently began reading Sharon Salzberg's The Force of Kindness as part of our morning mindfulness time. In today's reading, Sharon referred to the work of Albert Bandura on self-efficacy and wrote:

"This is the difference between pain and hopelessness, between distress and bitterness, between suffering and despair - sorrows or difficulties arise, yet we have some sense of confidence that we can find a way to work through them." - The Force of Kindness, page 8

This struck me as very close to the idea of empowerment (more HERE or HERE) in the transformative approach to conflict. And it reminded me of the importance of making habitual practices that strengthen my own self-efficacy.

Since moving back to the United States in 2010, I have felt again that one of the biggest challenges of living here is simply maintaining this kind of confidence. The problems are so complex, the cultural violence is so entrenched, and the system is so well-oiled and on such a huge scale that it is easy to be discouraged. Still, I have to keep going. The alternative to seeking a more peaceful way in the world is no alternative at all.

Reading Sharon's words this morning was a very kind encouragement to see the difference between suffering and despair. I feel really grateful for remembering that and a renewed since of confidence that we CAN find a way that does not sacrifice justice or peace. :)

Conformity, Cruelty and Remembrance

2012-11-22T22:19:00.000-06:00

I read two articles today that I thought were especially appropriate for a Thanksgiving reflection.

First, Professors Alex Haslam and Stephen Reicher revisited classic psycho-social experiments from the 1960s and '70s on the subject of normal people committing acts of cruelty when told to do so by an authority figure.

"Milgram's 'Obedience to Authority' research is widely believed to show that people blindly conform to the instructions of an authority figure, and Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) is commonly understood to show that people will take on abusive roles uncritically." ("Human Obedience: The Myth of Blind Conformity")

But Haslam and Reicher postulated something different. Namely,

"... tyranny does not result from blind conformity to rules and roles. Rather, it is a creative act of followership, resulting from identifying with authorities who represent vicious acts as virtuous." ("Human Obedience: The Myth of Blind Conformity")

And

"... it is not that they were blind to the evil they were perpetrating, but rather that they knew what they were doing, and believed it to be right. ... tyranny does not flourish because perpetrators are helpless and ignorant; it flourishes because they are convinced that they are doing something worthy." ("Human Obedience: The Myth of Blind Conformity")

The review was

"partly informed by Professors Haslam and Reicher's own prison experiment, conducted in 2002 in collaboration with the BBC. The study generated three findings. First, participants did not conform automatically to their assigned role; second, they only acted in terms of group membership to the extent that they identified with the group; and finally, group identity did not mean that people simply accepted their assigned position -- it also empowered them to resist it." ("Human Obedience: The Myth of Blind Conformity")

Compare this to the calm rendering by William Bradford of the massacre of the Pequot Indians in 1637:

"They approached the same with great silence, and surrounded it both with English and Indeans, that they might not breake out; and so assualted them with great courage, shooting amongst them, and entered the forte with all speed; and those that first entered found sharp resistance from the enimie, who both shott at and grapled with them; others rane into their houses, and brought out fire, and sett them on fire, which soone tooke in their matts, and, standing close togeather, with the wind, all was quickly on a flame, and therby more were burnte to death then was otherwise slain; it burnte their bowstrings, and made them unservisable. Those that scaped the fire were slaine with the sword; some hewed to peeces, others rune throw with their rapiers, so as they were quickly dispatchte, and very few escaped. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400. at this time. It was a fearfull sight to see them thus frying in the fyer, and the streams of blood quenching the same, and horrible was the stinck and sente ther of; but the victory seemed a sweete sacrifice, and they gave the prays therof to God, who had wrought so wonderfuly for them, thus to inclose their enimise in their hands, and give them so speedy a victory over so proud and insulting an enimie." (Of Plymouth Plantation)

What's most interesting to me about this passage is not the ongoing debates clogging the internet about the origins of Thanksgiving, but about how Bradford is able to move from being disturbed by the massacre ("It was a fearfull sight ... and horrible was the stinck") to being moved to worship ("the victory seemed a sweete sacrifice ... to God, who had wrought so wonderfuly for them"). Bradford's passage seems to fit Haslam and Reicher's findings, particularly in that Bradford did not automatically conform (he was disturbed) and in the essential role of group membership in the massacre and its interpretation. For Bradford, the cruel thing became the right thing. Or,

"'Decent people participate in horrific acts not because they become passive, mindless functionaries who do not know what they are doing, but rather because they come to believe -- typically under the influence of those in authority -- that what they are doing is right,' Professor Haslam explained." ("Human Obedience: The Myth of Blind Conformity")

Second, I was very interested in two case studies that explored how "religious worldviews and cultural values frame responses to trauma." This exploration was conducted in the context of prevailing ideas, namely:

"In the fields of human rights and memory studies, giving testimony about one's personal experience of genocide is believed to be both a moral duty and a psychological imperative for the wellbeing of the individual and the persecuted group to which she belongs. Accordingly, the coping strategies proposed to victims of genocide tend to be rather uniform: tell your story and do not let the violence you suffered be forgotten." ("Experience of Genocide as Transmitted Trauma May Not Be Universal")

However,

"In her interviews with Jewish-Israeli children of Holocaust survivors and Cambodian-Canadians whose parents were persecuted at the hands of the Khmer Rouge, Carol Kidron found that virtually all subjects rejected the pathologizing construct of transmitted PTSD." ("Experience of Genocide as Transmitted Trauma May Not Be Universal")

Specifically,

"Cultural paradigms may valorize or marginalize the importance of remembrance, and the author calls for scholars and humanitarian workers to take into account the diversity of cultural frameworks for remembrance when dealing with descendants of genocide victims." ("Experience of Genocide as Transmitted Trauma May Not Be Universal")

It is easy to fall into a trap of assuming you know what is best for someone else, especially if you really want to help and believe you have the answer. But the compassionate, generous response to life is one of kindness and openness. To force others into some prescribed response is just more violence.

Both these studies invite us to reflect on our own beliefs and actions, and to be open to seeing the harm we do, intentionally or not, in the pursuit of the good. Only by becoming aware in this manner will we have the power of choice and the clarity of what ideas and acts are really worthy of our attention, affection and thanks.

Around the Corner?

2012-11-20T17:16:00.000-06:00

It's tricky to gauge the relative amount of violence or peace in the world. Certainly, more people, and more sophisticated and readily available technology that can be used violently, are around every day. Combine this with current communication technology and trends, and we are aware of more violence than ever before.

But other things give me hope, and the conflict simulations conducted by Professor Håvard Hegre of the Department of Political Science at the University of Oslo, Norway, in cooperation with the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), are one source of that hope. According to this analysis,

"The number of conflicts is falling. We expect this fall to continue. We predict a steady fall in the number of conflicts in the next 40 years. Conflicts that involve a high degree of violence, such as Syria, are becoming increasingly rare." ("A More Peaceful World Awaits, Statistical Analysis Suggests")

Hegre sites a trend of decreasing acceptability of violent solutions -

"War has become less acceptable, just like duelling, torture and the death penalty." ("A More Peaceful World Awaits, Statistical Analysis Suggests")

And links this to economic realities -

"Economic changes in society have resulted in both education and human capital becoming important. A complex economy makes political violence less attractive. It has become too expensive to kill people. Modern society is dependent on economic development. It is too expensive to use violence to destroy this network. It has also become harder to take financial capital by force. It is easy to move capital across national borders. Therefore, a cynical leader will be less likely to choose violence as a strategy." ("A More Peaceful World Awaits, Statistical Analysis Suggests")

This reminded me of the ongoing research on altruism and cooperative behavior. One recent study argues -

"that humans developed cooperative skills because it was in their mutual interest to work well with others -- indeed ecological circumstances forced them to cooperate with others to obtain food. In other words, altruism isn't the reason we cooperate; we must cooperate in order to survive, and we are altruistic to others because we need them." ("We're in This Together: A Pathbreaking Investigation Into the Evolution of Cooperative Behavior")

You can listen to Frans de Waal explain it a bit more in his TEDTalk.

Here's to everyone who believes another world is possible! :)

Interview: Conflict Coaching

2012-11-08T08:03:00.000-06:00

Recently, I was interviewed as a guest lecture for a local university's conflict and communication class. This reflection was part of that interview.

*************

Question 1: What's the most important attribute for a mediator or conflict coach to cultivate?

If I have to choose one, it would be empathetic presence. But this is cheating a little bit, because I understand empathy as a cluster of knowledge, attitudes and skills. For me, it assumes: an ongoing conversation with relevant literature, research and best practices being explored in relevant psychosocial fields; the continual cultivation of genuine good will, kindness, joyfulness, compassion and equanimity for myself and others; and the improvement of essential skills related to listening, asking questions, being reflective, and so on. In most of the situations I have mediated, my presence is the only real source of power or authority I have available and the most important connection parties have to the process and, in turn, to each other.

Question 2: How did you get involved with conflict coaching?

I began conflict coaching before I knew the term, while I was a pastor in the late '90s and 2000s. It was very common for people to come to me for pastoral care regarding intractable conflicts where the other parties were either unwilling or unable to be involved in mediation. I began working with them through conflict processes with the goal that they would be better prepared to deal with the conflict.

I didn't begin explicitly developing or using conflict coaching models until I was in Cambodia. There, the impetus was being involved in an NGO culture with organizations that were built on or open to team-building and coaching techniques. So I was basically responding to the situations I found myself encountering in real life conflicts.

Question 3: What's the most important benefit of being coached through a conflict?

All along, I've been very impressed and inspired by the transformative potential of conflict coaching. In many ways, I prefer it to mediation. Often, there is more opportunity to go deeply with a client and really engage with, not only the presenting issues, but the habitual patterns of reacting, thinking, feeling, and desiring that influence our experiences of conflict, for good or for ill. In terms of the transformative mediation paradigm, there is a high chance of the client experiencing both empowerment and recognition in ways that help them navigate not just the current but future conflicts.

Question 4: How do you provide conflict coaching in a situation where the person is afraid to take the steps or make the changes necessary to improve their life?

This is also a great question, and there are a lot of caveats to answering it, ranging from making sure coaching is appropriate (as opposed to something like counseling) to being sensitive to individual cases. But a general rule of thumb is that you start with the way things are. If fear is what is happening, you start with the fear. You can't skip ahead or fast forward.

As a coach, if you really have confidence in your client's own wisdom and abilities, you are just helping them find the self-understanding, self-compassion, resources and skills they need to move forward. It's easy to see an issue like this as somehow distracting or off-topic, since we naturally want to get to what we see as The Big Issues, but I haven't found this to be the case. If a client is genuinely engaged in the process, and they are stuck in a place like anxiety or fear, then it is safe to assume it is relevant and that engaging with it is essential to forward movement. Be curious, be patient, and be compassionate.

I should probably also mention a couple of related issues. First, self-view or identity issues can often make it really difficult for a person to envision alternatives. Sometimes, we are not psychologically able, let alone willing, to make that step until enough situations arise that cause us to question our version of reality and see things as they are. You can help guide someone through that process, but you can't skip it, force it, or substitute your own wisdom or experience. Second, inability to leave an abusive relationship is also a common phenomenon. If you are working with clients in these kinds of situations, make sure you keep up with the research and best practices for understanding, supporting and referring them. These are complex issues that only appear to be easy and obvious to people outside of the experience.

***********

That was the end of the interview! Thanks to all the students in the class who submitted questions and invited me to reflect on these important topics!

Interview: What's the worst conflict issue you've experienced as a mediator?

2012-11-07T06:29:00.000-06:00

Recently, I was interviewed as a guest lecture for a local university's conflict and communication class. This reflection was part of that interview.

*************

Question: What's the worst conflict issue you've experienced as a mediator?

I think there are a few levels that are important for this question.

First, there's the experience of the people in the conflict. Generally speaking, people don't become willing to go to mediation until it's become something like “the worst conflict issue” they've had to deal with in their lives. So, as a mediator or conflict coach, it's important to approach each case with enough empathy and openness to understand their situation from their eyes and as a 'worst case.'

Second, there's a level of drama and excitement that we naturally associate with certain types of conflict. I have been involved in conflict transformation practices in really desperate or disturbing situations, like violent evictions of poor people in Cambodia or families in rural Missouri suffering consequences of abuse or addictions. I've mediated more than one relational conflict between parties that had such strong feelings that they chose shuttle diplomacy, sometimes even choosing to be in rooms on different floors of the building to eliminate any chance they'd even see each other in the halls. So I want to acknowledge that there's some excitement or curiosity that's piqued by high profile, violent, or emotionally messy cases. But I wouldn't necessarily call those cases the worst conflict issues.

Instead, the cases that I have found most difficult are the ones in which the parties are not invested in the process. For example, I once mediated a protracted conflict with multiple mediation sessions. Both parties spoke about the case with others – friends, family members, sometimes even strangers – in ways the undermined any progress we were making or trust we were building. Instead of getting better, the conflict would escalate in between sessions. In another case, a workplace conflict, the organizational culture that these co-workers returned to re-opened their wounds again and again. They wanted to move on, but they found themselves in an environment that perpetuated the conflict. It's in cases like this, where either the parties do not - or their circumstances make it difficult to – genuinely enter into the process, that I find the most difficult, regardless of whether the presenting issues are what may be called petty or dramatic.

Interview: How do you deal with cultural differences in conflict transformation?

2012-11-06T07:46:00.000-06:00

Recently, I was interviewed as a guest lecture for a local university's conflict and communication class. This reflection was part of that interview.

*************

Question 1: Since conflict is often caused by differences of opinions and perceptions, how do you overcome cultural differences that lead to conflict and instead create an environment of positive, cultural education?

Question 2: What were some common conflicts due to cultural differences in Cambodia? Were there any similarities between cultures for dealing with conflicts?

There were lots of differences, big and little; and sometimes what one person considers little, another person considers big. In Cambodia, common work-related conflicts often involved what might be considered Western conceptions and expressions of anger in tension with Cambodian ones. Bluntness and confrontation, considered a courtesy by many expatriates, were often experienced as humiliating to Cambodians, where saving face is quite important. Another example might be a Cambodian preference for insider-partial mediators, whereas the West has emphasized the importance of neutrality (I found the same preference, however, to be common in rural Missouri). You can find lists of these kinds of things pretty easily in anthropological or psychosocial literature, and they are useful as long as you use them as guides and not prescriptions, as long as you don't force other people's experiences into the list.

I really value and enjoy working in cross-cultural situations. One of the benefits is that people tend to be more aware of and patient with cultural differences because they can be more obvious or expected. In situations where culture is outwardly more homogeneous, it's easier to assume you understand the conflict and the appropriate solution. This is true for both mediators and parties involved. We might not be aware that there are ALWAYS multiple cultures involved in a conflict, or that each of us belong to multiple cultures and sub-cultures. You don't act the same way in a mediation as you do at a baseball game. There are different rules and expectations, but we don't necessarily spend a lot of time recognizing them or exploring the role of culture in our everyday experiences. So, ideally, I approach every conflict with the same curiosity or openness, and with a growing awareness of the assumptions and worldviews – both my own and others' – operating in the room, whether the cultural differences are obvious or subtle, overt or hidden.

And I think this hints at an important part of the similarities we share across cultures. Culture is really a collection of strategies that we are conditioned to accept and even prefer or enjoy. But the needs are the same, even if we give them different weight. I have seen conflicts dissolve when people understood that a direct confrontation was meant to be a sign of respect, or that the avoidance of a conflict was meant as a sign of respect, when the conversation is done in the presence of someone who can model respect and empathy for both parties. And another anecdotal proof of this shared humanity and the similarities of conflict transformation practices was my experience of participating in the curriculum development for Peace Bridges' Peaceful Families program. Together, we were able to work through research and practices from mainly Western sources and contextualize them in a thoroughly Cambodian way. And that process is ongoing with every delivery of the training.

Interview: How do values and attitudes impact efforts to reduce domestic violence?

2012-11-05T07:21:00.000-06:00

Recently, I was interviewed as a guest lecture for a local university's conflict and communication class. This reflection was part of that interview.

*************

Question: According to a Peace Bridges' article, a 2005 study found that many programs aimed at reducing domestic violence had limited effectiveness because they had been "unconnected to Cambodian values and attitudes." How do values and attitudes impact efforts to reduce domestic violence?

This is true. The first interventions targeting domestic violence in post-UNTAC Cambodia were in response to some research conducted in 1995-1996. Both NGOs and government programs poured money into a lot of different programs, mainly focused on interventions like advocacy, human rights education, and women's shelters. The next nation-wide baseline survey was completed in 2005, and the rates of violence were largely unchanged. In 2005, 64% of the population claimed to know a family that used violence by “Throwing something at the other, pushing or shoving or grabbing the other.” Further, 58% claimed to know a family that used violence by “Knocking on the head, slapping or spanking, kicking, biting, shaking, pulling hair, punching.” Even in families without physical violence, 93% of respondents said that it was acceptable for “cursing or insulting” to be used in family conflict and 92% claimed they knew a family that used cursing/insulting. Perhaps most significantly, respondent attitudes about the acceptability of violence, including extreme violence (e.g., threatening with a weapon, burning, choking, throwing acid, shooting, etc.), was consistently reported at disturbingly high levels. For example, when asked, “In your opinion, ... is it at any time acceptable for a husband to do this to his wife?,” 28% of respondents answered that it was at least sometimes acceptable to throw acid at or shoot the wife. (Cecil 2005: 26-29)

So the researchers looked at what was going on and why there was this disconnect. And here's an example. A group might do a wonderful education program, going out into the villages and giving a thorough overview of the laws relevant to domestic violence to the village chiefs and the local police. It wasn't the content of the training – that was all important and wonderful; it was the methodology. At the end of the training, the policeman could recite the laws. He understood it mentally. But it hadn't changed his attitude toward violence or women. He could still look the other way or even side with the abuser without even comprehending he was doing something unjust, because in his mind domestic violence was not really violence at all. It wasn't a crime, no matter what the law said.

The sources of those kinds of beliefs are connected to the type of things we would typically think of as culture. Cambodia has traditionally been oriented toward patriarchal and hierarchical arrangements, publicly and privately. But even if those attitudes are complicit, the real culprit here was the traumatization Cambodia experienced during the 20th century. They suffered colonial violence at the hands of the French, followed by the occupation of Japan and the annexation of western provinces by Thailand during World War II, followed by an independence movement, followed by carpet bombing by the USA during the Vietnam War, followed by the US backed coup and corrupt government of Lon Nol, followed by an ensuing and terribly bloody civil war, followed by the Khmer Rouge regime, followed by the invasion/liberation from Vietnam, followed by two more decades of hot-and-cold civil war before the relative stability of the UN transitional government and current constitutional monarchy. So it's not much of a surprise when you encounter is rampant corruption, violence and coercion at most levels and spheres of life.

So there are at least two levels at work here. First, you may have a traditional value like one found in the c'bab srei, where girls are warned of the danger of bringing the outside fire into the home (that is, don't be meddlesome and make other people's conflicts the source of a quarrel in your own family) or taking the inside fire outside (that is, don't get other people involved in private family matters and conflicts). In a neutral or positive context, this kind of teaching could be really positive, reducing gossip and keeping conflict from escalating. But what happens when these rules are applied in a context of historical and ongoing violence and trauma? Then those values can be applied really destructively, keeping a family from getting the help it needs, enforcing silence and isolation. So this other level is just as important. There are layers of culture interacting in unique ways. Values exist in a context and that context often determines how they are interpreted and applied.

So when you are engaging people operating in this kind of context, you're looking at multiple angles of the culture issue. You're becoming aware of both opportunities and limitations involved. For example, a cultural value related to keeping the family together at all costs can be extremely helpful in terms of motivating family members to stay engaged in a reconciliation process, even when the healing becomes painful and difficult. On the other hand, the same value can mean family members are really motivated to tolerate really destructive habits because engagement might mean risking too much in terms of the family breaking up. For example, nobody wants someone in their family to go to jail. In some cases, the anticipated emotional pain of seeing a family shamed, separated or otherwise damaged may be perceived as a worse scenario than tolerating domestic violence.

So it's not just a matter of making a list of cultural values and attitudes, although that can be very helpful. It's also seeing how those values and attitudes form a system of thinking and acting, how cultural violence is embedded in structural and direct violence. And it's also being able to see how cultures are always, always changing. Culture is a dynamic process, a continuity for sure but not something fixed. Culture is always in a complex dialog, encountering new ideas and practices, adjusting to new realities, integrating or rejecting elements as institutions and individuals comply, resist, undermine or innovate.

Interview: How do you communicate through misconceptions?

2012-11-04T07:38:00.000-06:00

Recently, I was interviewed as a guest lecture for a local university's conflict and communication class. This reflection was part of that interview.

*************

Question: When my husband and I argue, it is often based on misconceptions. I might think the bread is delicious, and he'll disagree and say it is too salty. When he says it like his opinion is fact, I get defensive. How do you communicate through these kinds of misconceptions?

I think your awareness of the power of perception is the most important step. You've noticed how you are both expressing HOW you experienced something as WHAT you experienced. You've noticed your reactivity and defensiveness. So that was the hard part. Now you can play with different ways to communicate. Every person is different, but you might start by exploring with empathy.

You could try different ways of framing your experience. When you say, “This bread is delicious,” what are you really hoping to communicate? What do you want your husband to understand about you? Is it happiness, just delight at a simple pleasure? Is it satisfaction, because maybe you baked the bread? Try to find the feeling and need operating behind the judgment that the bread is delicious, and then you'll have a better understanding of what you want to say, and you then have a better chance at finding a way to express it that will be heard by someone else.

And what is happening when you get defensive? Is it a need to connect emotionally with your husband? Anxiety? Anger? How does it feel in your body, and what do you want to do when you feel that way? Spend time with yourself; don't neglect your own emotions and experiences. Your thoughts and feelings are letting you know there's something important you need to give attention to for you to be a happy, healthy human being. Find out what those things are, and you are much closer to having those needs met.

You can also try reframing the less-than ideal response. Why might it be important to your husband to say, “It's too salty”? Is is a request for a change in the recipe, or is it an expression of pain or frustration with something going on in life? Brainstorm his possible feelings and needs, and you might find some of your own defensiveness dissolving. Marshall Rosenberg says that all human communication boils down to please or thank you. Is there a please in the salty comment? If you can hear a request, it opens up the possibility of really connecting with the other person – not necessarily by doing what they want, but by understanding what they need. Understanding and empathy are incredibly powerful human experiences.

Practically speaking, if you feel comfortable with it, use a friend to role-play. Try having the conversation where your friend plays the husband and responds in the best possible way. See how that feels, and practice saying what you really want to say. Do it again where the friend plays a hostile husband. Notice how that feels and get practice directing and expressing empathy under less than wonderful circumstances. You can also replay the conversation in similar ways, only this time you be the husband. Try to enter into and understand his experience and see if and how that changes things, both what you experience and what you want to say.

Interview: How do you deal with demands in conflict?

2012-11-03T06:38:00.000-05:00

Recently, I was interviewed as a guest lecture for a local university's conflict and communication class. This reflection was part of that interview.

*************

Question: We recently had a family mediation with an ex-spouse that was unbending. How do you deal with demands in conflict?

I should probably begin by noting that I've worked mainly out of two different approaches to mediation, the transformative and narrative paradigms. As such, I would be looking for ways to help the parties be empowered by a mediation process, for them to be able to recognize how they have framed their experiences, how those stories shape their interactions and expectations, and how they can create some space in those stories for something new to happen.

There are lots of resources and skills we could experiment with to help make that possible, but it usually is very specific to each case. So I'm guessing that my answer will be unsatisfying. But, as an example, I might start with exploring that word “unbending.” It's a really loaded word, a short-cut for lots and lots of stories and feelings that you've been experiencing. I'd want to spend some time in pre-mediation understanding what that word means for you and what it means for how you are feeling about and approaching the mediation. And, if it's appropriate, it's also a great way into some possible recognition for the ex-spouse.

More generally, it might be useful to just mention the opportunity presented by demands or positions. A demand is only an impasse when a strategy is confused with a need. There are usually lots and lots of ways to meet a need, whereas a strategy is something very specific. Food can be an easy way to illustrate this. Everybody needs to eat; that's a need. But what you choose from the menu is a strategy. You will die if you don't eat. You won't die if you don't eat your favorite pizza. So when someone is acting in a way we might interpret as unbending, what might be happening is that they've got in touch with something really, really strong, something that is really important. But if the insistence is on something being one particular way, a demand or position, it may be that they haven't gone deep enough to understand their need. Often, holding a demand is a stressful, anxious place in a conflict, unless you have – or think you have – the power to coerce the circumstances to do whatever you want. But even then, demands are emotionally constricting, narrow places. There is often an emotional release that comes when we take the time to really understand our needs and you feel the options opening up in front of you. Suddenly, there's a whole menu of options, instead of this one thing. It can be really freeing during a conflict, and you find you have a lot more common ground than you believed. It can be really empowering, because when there are more options to meet your needs, you have a better chance of getting your needs met.

Sometimes I use a metaphor of two (or more) mountain peaks to illustrate this (something I learned from Barry Higgins of Woodville Community Services). As you go up the mountains, you get farther away from each other and you have to yell to be heard. The peak is like taking an unbending position, making a demand. You have only one option, one peak, and it isolates you from other options and other people. Moving down the peaks, you find common interests, like the saddleback or valley where the mountains intersect. The wide open plains represent our shared humanity, the emotional and mental capacity we have to understand each other's feelings and needs. The further down the mountains you travel, the more common ground, or understanding, you share and the easier it is to really see each other and talk to each other.

It goes without saying that you can't force another person from their peak. But even if another party doesn't make that journey, you can still enjoy the increased freedom of going there. Ultimately, each of us can only be responsible for our own individual feelings and needs. When we come down from our demands, those dangerous and lonely peaks, we are learning that we don't have to make our own happiness or fulfillment dependent on others. We are in relation with others, but not in a forceful or coercive way. We have the capacity to respond to life, including difficult and painful situations, in a way that is really open and confident and empathetic and free.

Interview: How do you help a family begin to heal?

2012-11-02T09:39:00.001-05:00

Last week I was interviewed as a guest lecture for a local university's conflict and communication class. This reflection was part of that interview.

*************

Question: How do help a family begin to heal when it is hostile and broken?

In my experience, a first step is often in just assessing what is really appropriate. What we might call removal or separation is sometimes the first step in healing, especially in relationships that are really entrenched in destructive patterns. I've often encountered the idea that removal is somehow failure or that it is permanent, when in reality it can be a part of a healing process. In any case, people who are really wounded need time, space and support to heal more than just the relationship. Otherwise, it can be really difficult for people to break out of cycles of violent or hurtful habits.

The model we helped develop in Cambodia was initially based on our experiences of working with really desperate families here in the United States. It includes this concept of removal being a part of the healing and, when it moves it that direction, reconciliation, as well as an emphasis on the role of grieving in reconciliation. And here's the reason why. Healthy families are not families that never experience conflict or stress, because they are just part of life. Healthy families are ones that have the resources and skills, a family culture, for acknowledging a crisis or injury and working with it in a way that helps the family members grieve the painful situation, re-connect with each other empathetically, and then begin reconciling in ways that restore confidence and trust and safety with each other. Families without those resources and skills get re-routed into a very different cycle. Instead of a cycle of healing and reconciliation, these families are shunted over into a cycle of destructive habits. Those cycles are full of controlling, or passive-aggressive, or other dysfunctional patterns. You don't grieve and you don't re-connect empathetically in those cycles. As a mediator, you have to be really aware of the danger of just overlaying some reconciliation processes on top of those habits, without really engaging the family in such a way that they are able to move into the healthy cycle. My goal is not just to help the family with one issue or with one situation, but for them to be empowered and transformed in ways that allow the possibility of things being really different.

You can compare relational and emotional wounds to physical injuries. When someone has a severe physical injury, we realize that there's a certain amount of patience needed while someone heals. We also understand that doing nothing to help them heal might result in the injury becoming worse, or healing improperly. So it is with reconciliation. We want to come alongside people and make the resources and support that are helpful to them available so that they have the best chance of healing possible. But we're not pushing or rushing the process. Healing of a suffering family cannot be separated from the emotional healing of each family member. And often the first step of that is honestly assessing and communicating the pain so that the family can begin to grieve.

I Go Outside

2012-09-29T22:53:00.002-05:00

I haven't been finding/making the time for writing much here or at my other blogs. I'd like to, but then life sometimes feels heavy and the topics I might blog about are heavy. And I need to connect with some things that make me smile.

So I've started spending time at a new blog. It's a relaxing, peaceful place for me. I go outside. I look around. I learn stuff. I go inside and post it to the blog. It's mainly photos. And happiness.

There are a lot of wildflowers there just now, but I hope to be adding other stuff from when I go (or have gone outside), including times I've spent outside in other places, from California to Cambodia.

So if you don't hear from me much here, you'll probably find me at David Goes Outside. :)

Peculiar People: Social Rejection as Inspiration

2012-08-30T19:21:00.003-05:00

I've been fascinated - and greatly benefited from - the research at UCLA's Social Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory for several years now. For example, the explanation of Pain-Overlap Theory has played a key role in my own approach to peacebuilding and conflict transformation:

"Pain overlap theory proposes that social pain, the pain that we experience when social relationships are damaged or lost, and physical pain, the pain that we experience upon physical injury, share parts of the same underlying processing system (Eisenberger & Lieberman, 2004). This system is responsible for detecting the presence or possibility of physical or social harm and recruiting attention once something has gone wrong in order to fix it. Evolutionarily, this overlap makes good sense. Based on mammalian infants’ lengthy period of immaturity and their critical need for substantial maternal contact and care, it is possible that the social attachment system, the system that keeps us near close others, may have piggybacked onto the pre-existing pain system, borrowing the pain signal to signify and prevent the danger of social separation (Nelson & Panksepp, 1998; Panksepp, 1998)." ("Why It Hurts to Be Left Out: The Neurocognitive Overlap Between Physical and Social Pain," by Naomi Eisenberger and Matthew Lieberman, available as a PDF Download)

But it also raised a question for me: what about those times when we seem to thrive as outsiders? What about those moments when belonging to a certain group causes more suffering than leaving it? Where do we find the inspiration and the courage to cut ties when our social relationships come in conflict with our values? Dissent? Whistle-blowing? Conversion? Apostasy?

While it didn't answer all my questions, I was excited to stumble on a recent article by Sharon Kim, Lynne Vincent, and Jack Goncalo called "Outside Advantage: Can Social Rejection Fuel Creative Thought?" (available here). They concluded

"that the negative consequences of social rejection are not inevitable and may depend on the degree of independence in one’s self-concept. The self-concept may shape responses to rejection because independent selves are motivated to remain distinctly separate from others. This motivation is pivotal because, for these individuals, the experience of rejection may trigger a psychological process that stimulates, rather than stifles, performance on creative tasks."

In other words, a person can deflect some of the suffering of social rejection into an affirmation of their core values, turning the tables by rejecting those social relationships and mores that would reject them and inspiring them to create something new.

For me, this makes a lot of sense when reflecting on the role of self-identity in arenas from politics (e.g., marginalized groups displaying pride in the face of rejection) to religion (e.g., the Christian admonition to be a "peculiar people" or the Buddhist recollection that a disciple is "no longer living according to worldly aims and values").

To return to Kim, Vincent and Goncalo,

"Our results suggest that bolstering independence in self-concept can help manage some consequences of rejection and even present opportunities for increased creative expression, offering a constructive alternative to other generally negative outcomes. For the socially rejected, creativity may be the best revenge."

For all of us engaged in the slow work of social healing and transformation, here is a great reminder: Creativity IS resistance, and also our best hope forward. Or, as Aurora Levins Morales wrote,

"There is a story that oppression writes upon our lives. It carves itself into our psyches, our bodies, our ways of living, our sense of possibility. [We need to rewrite] that story, so that the memory of pain becomes the ground of a new, compassionate and powerful way to be together.... we need to find "as many ways as we can to tap our unbearable pain and use it to expand the boundaries of what we had imagined to be possible, personally and politically." As far as I can see, learning to transform our collective and individual suffering in this way is the only path out of the narrow place in which we struggle." (from the foreword of Power Under by Steven Wineman)

It also reminded me of the whole reason I began this weblog.

How can I be human and go along with other humans in this world? How can I submit to exploitation of each other and creation? support the increase of violence? ignore the plight of the poor? ... The crush of society (and our own broken hearts) would have me coalesce into the blah, lifeless monotony of selfishness, asking me to look the other way, to let things be, to mind my own business on the way to my own eventual and meaningless death. ... In the end, being counter must be a reflection not of hostility, but of reconciliation – of recognizing the beauty and worth of all that life has made and of seeing in this handiwork our own hope of peace. There's a place for all of us. ... If there's life, there's a niche, even for 'All things counter, original, spare, strange...'"

Here's to a better world!

PTSD and War

2012-08-30T18:29:00.002-05:00

I've been thinking today about a recent article describing a study in Denmark, "War Is Not Necessarily the Cause of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder." The research surveyed

"the mental condition of military personnel before, during and after their posting to Afghanistan has proved thought-provoking. In total, 746 Danish soldiers took part in the survey. The soldiers completed a questionnaire five times in all -- before their posting, during their time in Afghanistan and three times after their return to Denmark."

From my understanding, what the study revealed was not so much whether combat exposure can cause PTSD, but how the mental health of soldiers before combat impacts their resilience to PTSD. For example, by including data before, during and after deployment, the study could show

"that many of the soldiers had already experienced trauma before they went to Afghanistan, and that this has affected the way they reacted during their posting."

The study grouped the subject experiences into three categories: those whose mental health improved after deployment ("a small proportion), those whose robust mental health meant little change in mental health during or after deployment (the largest group), and those whose mental health deteriorated and did not improve (about 5%). Although there wasn't an indication about whether the survey analyzed types of combat exposures, one researcher reported that

"this group of soldiers differ from the robust group in that there were more childhood traumas in their backgrounds."

There are a lot of unanswered questions for me after reading this article (e.g., did the surveys include any exploration of Perpetration-Induced Traumatic Stress?), but I think the point about childhood trauma and resilience to further trauma is especially important.

This becomes especially true when one considers studies, like the Millennium Cohort Study (a long term study tracking the health of 50,000 US military personnel), that indicate sharp rises in PTSD among combat veterans. For example, in 2008, the Millenium study concluded:

"These data show overall new incidence rates of 10 to 13 cases per 1000 person years and suggest a threefold increase in new onset self reported post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms or diagnosis among recently deployed military personnel with combat exposures." (SOURCE)

If the Danish study is correct in singling out childhood traumas as the key factor in the onset of PTSD for military personnel, one policy implication is that governments pursuing war and other violent options need to do a much better job of screening personnel before service. Preventing exposure of these individuals to the traumatic stress of combat would save money and lives.

But there is another issue that could be lurking beneath these kinds of obvious conclusions. If PTSD of military personnel is on the rise, and if PTSD of military personnel is conditioned by childhood trauma, then do we need to be looking for a rise in incidents of childhood trauma? Assuming that the demographics of recruitment have remained steady, is our culture steadily increasing the number of traumatized candidates available?

For me, this is the most important question raised by the Danish study. It is an invitation to look closely at our cultures of violence and how those cultures translate into systemic and direct violence against all members of our society, including - and especially - our children.

Only then can we begin the necessary process of healing and transforming our society for the better.

Resources for Children Dealing with Stress

2012-08-29T13:48:00.002-05:00

A recent article discussing the importance that caregivers "Evaluate Children's Stress After Natural Disasters" alerted me to some resources available at 7-Dippity. As the article points out, the importance of helping children recover from stressful experiences cannot be overestimated. For example,

"A paper to be published in the Journal of Affective Disorders indicates that, eight months after the disaster, children with signs of both post-traumatic stress and depression represent a high-risk group for longer-term adverse reactions. Such children are less likely to recover by 15 months post-disaster than other youth. They also report more severe levels of psychological symptoms and experience more post-disaster stressors than other youth." (SOURCE)

The activities are designed for caregivers and children to do together and, from the workbooks I've looked at, are very adaptable and practical. Here are some examples:

Completing checklists to help caregivers and children gauge the level and emotional impacts of the stress they've experienced
Identifying coping mechanisms and normal routines that can support healthy responses, including eating well and exercising
Talking about healthy ways to manage anger and resolve conflict (e.g., "Since the terrorist attacks, many people have felt angry or irritable. You might have these feelings, too. It is okay to feel angry, but it is not okay to fight or argue with someone because you are upset or angry at someone or something else.")

Even though the workbooks are designed for responding to specific disasters (e.g., an earthquake, a hurricane, current wars or the 9/11 attacks), I think the activities are valuable to anyone who spends time with children.

You can download them HERE.

Media Violence, a New Report

2012-08-28T15:47:00.003-05:00

An important report, "charged with the task of producing a public statement on the known effects of exposure to media violence, based on the current state of scientific knowledge," from the International Society for Research on Aggression has been released. You can download it from the ISRA HERE.

The report is only seven pages and well worth the effort, even if you are not familiar with reading literature reviews.* But here are some highlights, along with some of my reflections about their importance and possible avenues for further research.

First,

"It is important to note, however, that these conclusions are about aggressive behavior, not criminally violent behavior (Coyne et al., 2008). Very few studies have looked at the effects on serious criminally violent behavior, and the existing evidence (and theory) suggests that the effect on criminally violent behavior, while significant for males (Huesmann, 1986; Huesmann et al., 2003), is smaller than the effect on general aggression (Savage & Yancey, 2008)."

I wanted to start with this one, since it is a common misunderstanding regarding media violence studies. By focusing on criminally violent behavior, people can sidestep the important issues involved. Anecdotal evidence - "I've played violent video games all my life, and it's never made me want to murder someone!" - also plays a key role here. The report also points out the irony of this kind of common-sense denialism.

"For other media contents unrelated to violence, it is widely accepted that what people see in the virtual reality of the media has an effect on their behavior in the real world. For example, the multibillion dollar advertising industry flourishes on the assumption that showing people media advertisements will make them more likely to buy the advertised product. Airlines train prospective pilots on flight simulators to teach them virtual flying skills before allowing them to fly a real plane. Limiting sexually explicit material from being shown at times when children might be watching reflects the belief that such media contents adversely affect young people’s development. These examples show that media contents of different sorts are accepted to have an impact on how people feel, think, and act in real life. However, there seems to be more reluctance to accept the conclusion that depictions of violence in the media have a similar capacity to influence people’s behavior in the real world, in particular their readiness to engage in aggressive behavior."

The report goes on to describe some of the possible reasons for this:

"One reason people sometimes disbelieve media violence effects is that they mistakenly think that media violence effects must be immediate and severe (e.g., playing a violent video game and then immediately shooting someone) or else they are nonexistent. In truth, media violence effects usually take less dramatic and instantaneous forms (e.g., a child being more defiant and disrespectful with increased media violence exposure (Dill, 2009); or an adult being less helpful to others (Bushman & Anderson, 2009)). Furthermore, if one has a vested interest in violent media (e.g., one creates or uses violent media), cognitive dissonance and the need to maintain a positive self-image motivates the denial of media violence effects (Bushman & Huesmann, 2012)."

I suspect that this reluctance also has a lot to do with the long-term impacts the report describes: neural development, learning, and desensitization.

Neural development has to do with the reality of how our brains work -

"Often in life, a complex array of sensations, feelings, and concepts are activated together in certain circumstances, and these become linked together in a complex knowledge structure in our brain called a schema or script (e.g., knowledge about what a supermarket is, where the groceries are likely to be, relevant memories and feelings, and a script for how to behave). These knowledge structures, once activated, are key determinants of behavior, and may influence what we do outside of our conscious awareness (Huesmann, 2007; Huesmann & Kirwil, 2007)."

When I consider how ubiquitous exposure to media violence is, I think it is likely that most of us would have a difficult time with questioning such a key and pervasive element. I'm also curious about how, in my perception, media violence is often linked to key concepts like self-identity or justice. This is also related to the report's conclusions about learning. For example,

"Aside from being sources for imitation, violent images such as scenes in movies or games or pictures in a comic book act as triggers for activating aggressive thoughts and feelings already stored in memory. If these aggressive thoughts and feelings are activated over and over again by repeated exposure to media violence, they become chronically accessible, and thus more likely to influence behavior. One may also become more vigilant for hostility and aggression in the world, and therefore begin to feel that some ambiguous actions by others (such as being bumped in a crowded room) are deliberate acts of provocation."

Finally, I'm glad the report mentioned desensitization, the importance of which can be too easily overlooked. The danger here is not so much in promoting aggressive behavior as in tolerating it -

"Desensitization to violence disrupts the process of moral evaluation because the desensitized individual will not perceive or respond to the cues that typically would initiate evaluative processes (Funk 2005; Huesmann, 2007; Huesmann & Kirwil, 2007). Therefore, negative actions may occur without consideration of their moral implications, or a needed prosocial action may not be initiated (Bushman & Anderson, 2009)."

Similarly, the report included priming and mimicry as important short-term impacts.

"For example, studies show that, if a person is insulted by another person, the mere sight of a gun can push that insulted person over the threshold to retaliate aggressively against the provoker (Berkowitz & LePage, 1967)."

"Humans have specialized neurons, called mirror neurons, that probably promote such mimicry. A particular mirror neuron fires whenever a particular behavior, for example, hitting, is performed or observed."

One of the great strengths of the report is in its commitment to not exaggerate or understate impacts of media violence. For example,

"No single risk factor causes a child or adolescent to act aggressively. Instead, it is the accumulation of risk factors that leads to an aggressive act (Berkowitz, 1993; Eron, Huesmann, Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1974). Although no individual risk factor may be necessary or sufficient to cause aggressive behavior on its own, each factor increases the likelihood of aggression, especially in response to some provocation. This model is known as the risk and resiliency model. After taking into consideration numerous characteristics of the child and the environment, including risk and protective factors, research clearly shows that media violence consumption increases the relative risk of aggression, defined as intentional harm to another person that could be verbal, relational, or physical."

This accuracy stems from the team's commitment to examine all the studies and employ meta-analysis of the results. This makes the report's conclusions robust and useful, for the evidence can speak clearly and for itself.

"Over the past 50 years, a large number of studies conducted around the world have shown that watching violent television, watching violent films, or playing violent video games increases the likelihood for aggressive behavior (Anderson et al., 2003; Bushman & Huesmann, 2006; Huesmann, 2007; Huesmann & Kirwil, 2007). This is true across studies using different methods, coming from different countries, and covering different time periods."

This includes "an increased probability of aggression in the short term," "an increased probability of behaving more aggressively in real life," and "a greater risk of behaving aggressively in real life as adolescents and adults."

"Of course, as in all behavioral or medical research, some studies show effects and some studies do not. To determine how robust effects are, it is best when results from all types of studies are aggregated by meta-analyses: Meta-analysis is a mathematical method for combining multiple scientific studies on a topic together, including those that demonstrate an effect and those that do not, to test whether the effect really exists when all studies are considered."

"The results of all of these meta-analyses show that exposure to media violence can increase not only aggressive behavior in a variety of forms, but also aggressive thoughts, aggressive feelings, physiological arousal, and decrease prosocial behavior. The effects of media violence can be different for different people, and can be very subtle, especially when examined over the course of a person’s lifetime. Media violence effects have been found in all types of media examined (TV, movies, video games, music, cartoons, etc.) (Anderson et al., 2003; Kirsh, 2012). The effects are remarkably consistent regardless of the type of medium, age, gender, or where the person lives in the world."

The report is cautious in making recommendations, but does include some implications for parenting and public policy. One important factor they do highlight is the increasingly private exposure to media violence.

"Youth can now download, view, play, and listen to violent material any time of day or night, often from the privacy of their own rooms, and with little supervision from their parents. With new technologies, the opportunities for viewing violent content, which was once relegated to more public spaces (such as the neighborhood, the movie theater, or the living room), have become increasingly private."

One of the healthiest moves our communities could make would be to engage in a more open and honest dialog about violence among us: what we find entertaining, how we treat one another, and what kind of community we'd really like to be. The ISRA report provides a great opportunity to do just that.

*You can also read a brief summary article about the report at Science Daily, HERE.

Generosity and Religion

2012-08-07T12:15:00.001-05:00

Many years ago, while I was in high school, I was helping a stranger raise some money and collect some household items after their family had suffered a house fire. I was the leader of an after-school bible study/prayer group at the time, so I thought asking them for help was the obvious thing to do. I shared the story and asked to take up donations, receiving a handful of pocket change in return. I was pretty frustrated by this, since I watched these same students spend many dollars a day at the snack machines. I couldn't believe they thought a $1 bag of potato chips was more important than helping a family in need.

I was met in the hall by one of my teachers, who noticed I was upset and stopped to talk with me. He gave me $20 to pass along to the family. And that act of generosity, including having compassion on me and stopping to listen to my experience, has stuck with me through the years and inspired me more than once.

One of the aspects that especially threw me off balance at the time was that the devoted Christians had nothing to give - not money, and not empathy, while the teacher, not a particularly religious man, did. It was a bit of a Good Samaritan story to me, forcing me to examine some of my religious stereotypes I held at the time.

I'm sharing this now because I was reminded of it by a recent study at the University of California, Berkeley -

"In three experiments, social scientists found that compassion consistently drove less religious people to be more generous. For highly religious people, however, compassion was largely unrelated to how generous they were..." (SOURCE)

The researchers summarized that -

"Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not," said UC Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer, a co-author of the study. "The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns." (SOURCE)

I can't say that, even at the peak of my fundamentalist Christian days, I wasn't motivated by compassion. Generosity has, as long as I can remember, been an important value to me and a key part of my spiritual life. I was incredibly moved by the example of Jesus and those like him, who gave unstintingly to others.

But I was also aware of the easy slide from example to obligation. It was also easy to use those examples to manipulate people through guilt or praise. Generosity was encouraged, sometimes demanded, in order to keep a steady income. It can be hard to trust in people's compassion when the bills are still coming. So I think it's plausible that people involved in organizations, including religious ones, that bring the focus of giving back to communal identity or dogma are at a higher risk to disconnect generosity with compassion.

But I also think the experience is more complicated than that, as THIS STUDY also indicates. And the factor that resonates most strongly to me is this -

"Another common thread exists within the positive experience of giving and actually connecting with people you are helping, such as working at a soup kitchen and sitting down to eat with someone who is down on their luck." (SOURCE)

A generous life is a life of joy.

You can explore more at Notre Dame's Science of Generosity, HERE.